Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message <[🔎] F4CCEC28-FE42-4AF3-B0C0-C832A6B0DE1D@dalkescientific.com>,
Andrew Dalke <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights.
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying
"this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' ".
What this give YOU is the right to redistribute the code according to
the terms of the GPL v3. BUT - READ THE GPL - the people to whom you
give the code get their licence from ME, NOT YOU. And I granted the
licence as "v2 or later".
So, AT NO POINT WHATSOEVER, does my code become v3, whatever you say or
do. If you modify my code and licence your stuff as v3, the resulting
work then becomes v3-only because the licence of the work as a whole is
the subset of the individual licences - here v3 - but my code still
Anthony W. Youngman - email@example.com